On the phone so I'll be brief, bit first point is mistaking getting rid of guns for banning guns. They are different things. Magic wand get rid of guns was my point, they are dangerous little buggers.Originally Posted by Mordrak
No worries, while I disagree with the extent of your assertions and in some instances believe you have a double standard about when you want data, I'm pretty much spent at this point.
You've been a really good sport though.
Thanks.
You know, bullshit. Have you provided a single slice of data yet? Don't lump me in with you, arguing from a gut feeling. Frankly I'm surprised that there isn't a correlation between gun ownership rates and murder rates, I would have thought otherwise. My only gut feeling is that I grew up around firearms, everyone I knew enjoyed using firearms, and that was it. They were a tool and a toy. I don't use that as some sort of anecdotal argument because that would be (thread title approacheth) intellectually dishonest. Instead I quote proper studies and bring up salient facts that seem counter to rhetoric.
So frankly Mordrak, fuck you buddy for suggesting we're on the same level, we're not. You and Soapy can't seem to listen to what I say without then extending my position into the far reaches of silliness, like me saying gun bans will never work, guns don't make it easier to kill someone etc. Yet you both constantly ignore simple statistics that show clear examples of points, and keep repeating things like "well, more guns must obviously mean more crime" Wrong. "More guns mean more murder." Wrong.
How about this, why don't you clearly state a position, base it on facts, and we can discuss it, rather than coming at me as a boogeyman all the time? I challenge you from the bottom of my Kerry-voting, Obama-voting, loophole-closing, licensing-wanting, training-requiring heart.
H.
Houngan, I don't have a dog in this fight, but from the sidelines I gotta say that Mordrak isn't the one who's coming off as Captain Crankypants here.
I get cranky when people make up shit then retire with their monocle, yes. Doesn't change the simple fact that nobody wants to talk about real studies and statistics.
H.
What did I make up? The only data you provided is very broad and doesn't address many of the reasonable criticisms brought forth by others in the thread (not just me). It isn't proof of a lack of correlation, as you yourself have admitted.
You make up my views to suit your narrative. You haven't made up any data because you've presented no data, you either ignore what I say or extend it past the stated meaning to try and either demonize me or dismiss the data.
I'm more than willing to do a reset, if you would like to bring up a single topic, clearly stated, that you would like to discuss I will gladly engage you in the most honest fashion I can muster.
H.
Yeah, they are simple statistics, proving very simple mundane things. You're the one making simple statistics to be more than they are, and then retreating to factoids like Americans are just killers.
I haven't made up anything, you're the one that ignored Soapy's point (based on the use of handguns in murders) and waived it away based on you're own take away without presenting any data yourself to contradict his question.
I guess you're allowed to interpret data, without backing up it some other way but Soapy isn't. Great.
Edit: Get this Houngan, your data is broad, it's not specific. You can't , at least with any legitimacy, keep pointing to the same study that doesn't make the necessary distinctions it would have to make disprove Soapy's hypothesis with regard to handguns.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-21-2011 at 06:39 PM.
Which hypothesis? Seriously, state it clearly and I'll discuss it, and if we come away with a new understanding, I'll gladly change my mind and thank you for the help. Speak!
H.
There's not much in the way of statistics adjusted for firearm type, and a terrible lack of statistics about the size of the black market. Certainly in the US criminals find it trivial to get their hands on guns whereas in other countries it's harder for them. People who have no business handling a firearm also seem to manage to get legal ones quite often.
I've not seen any sensible alternate hypothesis about why the US murder rate is so high compared to all other comparable countries. It's not a data point you can just handwave away and claim no correlation between gun and handgun ownership and murder rate.
But I already stated it clearly... no handguns would mean less murders.
Soapy's hypothesis (at least as I understood it) is that the different makeup of firearm ownership (a higher rate of handgun ownership as a percentage of total guns owned) may account (in part) for increased homicide rate.
He used as a jumping off point the fact that handguns are overwhelmingly used (or were) in homicides within the US. Secondly, even the data you linked which showed a decline in handgun use in homicides... happens to coincide with an overall drop in homicide rates within the US. While it's not outright support for his point, it reinforces its plausability.
That's why I asked you if you had any statistics for the rate of ownership of handguns over the period in time where we saw the drop in both homicides and handguns used in homicides.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-21-2011 at 07:18 PM.
Yes, and that's correct. No handguns would indeed mean less murders. No pools would mean less child deaths, no cars would mean fewer deaths. What you're not getting is that this very obvious point has nothing to do with the conversation.
H.
Right! And thank you, that's what I wanted. Do I have those statistics? No. But please do the research and find out for yourself, and let me know. The idea that handgun percentage might have a correlation to violent crime (adjusted for legal vs. illegal ownership) is still very much an up-in-the-air topic for me. On the one hand handguns are obviously better suited to casual crime, on the other most significant crime factors seem to ignore gun ownership statistics. I would LOVE to come to a conclusion on this matter.
H.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with the conversation? Reducing the number of murders I would think would be one of the significant reasons to consider gun control. The question, "Does reducing the number of handguns reduce the number of murders," has everything to do with the conversation.
If you don't think so, then, imo, you're back to begging the question.
There's a bunch of stuff wrapped up in this, first, I thought Soapy's primary point was about homicides, not violent crime generally. Second, legal vs. illegal ownership.. well sure, if we can look at estimates on the latter as well as the former, that's great. However, the distinction only really matters if you believe any regulation is doomed to fail (or at least you're aiming to use that argument) with regard to the latter.
But at least you've finally acknowledged the point and hopefully understand the limitations of the data you are using. Soapy isn't even the first one to bring it up, as Tim Partlett basically said the same thing right before him.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 04:03 AM.
This is exactly the attitude which bars us from discussing the topic in depth. Guns are certainly no toy and if you'd like them to call a tool, may I ask you what your family does with it?
My society has made it pretty clear to me that guns are only used to kill, you don't shoot at anything living except for the effect to have it die. You don't shot to injure, you shot to kill, you shot to destroy.
I have certainly no issues with people bearing firearms when they are living in the woods but why is there a need for handguns to exist in a civilized country? You can't shot some deer with a handgun, a handgun is solely made to be able to kill humans at short range.
Also, a functioning phone and an alarm system are certainly better and saver tools for protecting your home and family.
Houngan is a competitive shooter (at least if IIRC). Perhaps it's a poor choice of words on his part, because the connotation belies their dangerousness, but he's referring to the enthusiast past time of shooting guns (and in his case as a sport). You could say the same thing about archery, cars, etc.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 04:26 AM.
Lynch, don't you find it strange to present "what your society taught you" as an argument about something in another country? That's on par with a Creationist argument.
Anyway, go here:
Shooting Range Philippsburg
76661 Philippsburg, Am Schießstand 1 (Prolongation of Street “Mittlerer Weg“)
Telefon +49 7256 9243889
And watch a match. If you don't like "toy", how about sporting equipment?
H.
What you can't seem to get is that discussing "no guns" isn't an argument for the real world. There are 300,000,000 guns in the US right now, no ban will get rid of them. Thus, "genie out of the bottle." Are you unfamiliar with this argument?
H.
The proliferation of firearms can certainly be reversed with a lot of work. I agree though that it is super unlikely. Anyway the big problem is proliferation into the black market. People buy guns legally and then sell them to third parties, or get them stolen, or get them "stolen", or firearm dealers sell them directly on the black market...
And then it becomes Canada's problem; just to point to one article.
Firearm proliferation can be stopped? Um... Hows that working out for mexico?
Also, the idea that legal gun dealers just sell on the black market is so off.. atf audits on dealers are such a constant thing.. I'm sure it happens, but hardly often or for long before they are caught.
Emphasis mine.
Seriously, are you trolling now?
mexico's problems are manifold, not the least of which is terrible corruption, terrible enforcement, and little cooperation from the us to curtail weapons smuggling. Unless you think the US is as bad as Mexico, then you have to agree US efforts at cleaning up guns would be a lot more successful.
It's just one way the black market gets the guns; and a few bad apples can move a lot of iron. It seems likely the biggest conduit are private individuals but stats again are hard to come by.Also, the idea that legal gun dealers just sell on the black market is so off.. atf audits on dealers are such a constant thing.. I'm sure it happens, but hardly often or for long before they are caught.
Mordrak, if you can't see my point, then you're too dumb to argue with.
H.
I'm disagreeing with the way you are framing the debate Houngan. It begs the question and is intellectually dishonest.
So yeah, screw you too.
Edit:
Here's some suggestions for honest arguments with regard to what would be the necessary multi-pronged approach to reducing gun circulation:
- It's not politically feasible, because of the existence of a significant gun culture.
- It's not economical for the benefit we would receive (or there would be no benefit to reducing gun circulation).
- It would take too long to effectively implement.
- It wouldn't get past lobbyists for the gun industry.
- We'd have to work with our geographical neighbors to implement similar solutions, which may prove difficult if not impossible.
- We need our guns in case we need to revolt or personal defense.
- I like guns and gun culture.
Next time, try one of those, rather than artificially constraining the terms of the debate so you can continue to use shitty rhetoric meant to shut down any attempts at regulation. No one's saying we can wave a magic wand and make guns disappear or we can just tell people to stop using guns while addressing none of the other issues surrounding guns.
And yes, at this point, the genie is out of the bottle is shitty rhetoric because it suggests a permanent futility due to the sheer number of guns. I think that's a faulty premise with which to begin the debate.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 02:36 PM.
Whatever man, you've been having your own private argument for a few pages now.
H.
I thought this thread was for intellectual honesty? I'm sorry other people don't want constrain the discussion to the little box that allows you to misrepresent what data means or allow you to use the same shitty argument over and over again.
It took pages to get you even to acknowledge the limitations of the study you were citing with regard to Soapy's (and Tim's) point. What a hypocrite.
Tell you what, why don't you state your position, and state what you think my position is, and we'll go from there.
H.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote